In this issue

Council news

The future of workforce reform was a major item of
discussion at November Council, with a proposal for regulating meetings on the
table. Here are the highlights from the meeting, held 23-24 November in Warwick.

Day six exclusions

We knew from the Education and
Inspections Act that parents would become responsible for pupils during the
first five days of exclusion and schools would have to find alternate education
for them from day six. However the recent consultation states that the 'sixth
day' rule would apply to cumulative exclusions throughout the year. ASCL has
made it clear to government that this is unacceptable and would place an
unrealistic burden on school resources. (Update: The DfES has agreed to
reconsider this position. See Policy change on day six exclusions.)

A level results date

It came to ASCL's attention that, in
the gradual move to post-qualification application to university (PQA), A level
results day may be moving forward by a week in 2008, giving school leaders no
full two-week break during the holiday. John Morgan, ASCL's representative on
the HE admissions group, emphasised that this is one stage on the way to full
PQA. John Dunford is raising the concern with ministers that the work-life
balance of school leaders must not deteriorate further because of the shift to
PQA.

SIPs update

The Pay and Conditions Committee
discussed concerns about SIPs and the duality of the role. Some heads have
stated that they cannot be as honest in performance management (PM) as they
would like because they are worried that confidential issues are going back to
the local authority. Some LAs seem to be encouraging SIPs to 'report back' on
heads' PM. This is not allowed. Members should seek clarification from the SIP
that anything said during PM is confidential and goes only to the governing
body. ASCL will continue to monitor the SIPs situation and to give regular
feedback to the DfES SIP team.

Coursework consultation

Education Committee held a debate on
coursework, which brought out a wide variety of opinions, ranging from abolish
it all to retain it in its present form for some subjects. The committee agreed
that:

In its present
form, coursework doesn't work.

Assessment must
be fit for purpose - this is not the case at the moment.

Decision to
abolish or diminish coursework needs to be made subject by subject.

Need to keep
some method of developing students' problem solving and redaction skills.

If extended
projects at 14-19 are to work, students will need to have some experience of
coursework.

The committee will use
the points as the basis of ASCL policy on coursework.

Behaviour information

Public and Parliamentary Committee
members are working with the NASUWT to update and reissue the joint information
pack on managing behaviour as there have been a number of new regulations since
the pack was first issued in 2003.

The committee
endorsed the work and asked that it be made available online so that members
can adapt and re-badge the information for their school. The committee also
asked that it be made clear on the pack that it is for guidance use only - it
is not ASCL policy that members are bound to use it.

Funding policy

The Funding Committee has reviewed
ASCL's funding policy and priorities and agreed a revised version of these. The
paper will be published in January and posted to all members.

The committee also
discussed funding of the 14-19 diplomas. There was widespread concern that
without first having seen the curriculum models, it is very difficult for
anyone to have an informed discussion about costs. However the government must
realise that costs will vary for every institution; rural schools are
particularly vulnerable. There was a more fundamental concern whether the
diplomas will ever work in practice without serious damage to the rest of the
curriculum.

Plenary debate: Modern
foreign languages

Full Council held a debate on modern foreign languages to
inform ASCL's response to the Dearing consultation. Brian Lightman reported on
a seminar he attended with Lord Dearing.

It was widely agreed that the answer is not
a return to compulsory GCSE. Comments during the debate were as follows.

The Language Ladder is helpful but
additional funding is needed to assess these qualifications. Can this be
subsidised?

The government must recognise that language
GCSEs are more difficult. There is evidence from language colleges to support
this. Sue Kirkham stated that QCA is looking at GCSE standards across subjects.

To attract students,
the curriculum needs a complete overhaul to make it more interesting and
engaging. There is good practice in language colleges, for instance single sex
teaching of languages, which has raised attainment. Language learning needs to
be incentivised.

There are real problems recruiting good
language teachers. Better training is needed, including at key stages 2 and 3.
There is a role here for the TDA.

There should be a language entitlement
between 14-19 rather than compulsory GCSE. However, there is a danger that
diplomas will kill off foreign language teaching altogether. There is not
enough time to teach it properly.

Languages must start in primary school but
it needs to be properly resourced. Primary pupils should be exposed to multiple
languages.

Comments from Council were collated and
formed the basis of ASCL's discussions with Lord Dearing.

Plenary debate: Workforce
reform

Pay and Conditions Consultant Stephen
Szemerenyi gave an update on the work of WAMG and led a wide-ranging debate
about the next steps in workforce reform. Specifically he asked Council to
support a proposal, reviewed by Pay and Conditions Committee, to take to the
social partnership about clarifying the guidance on meetings in Circular 2/98.

Stephen's update
included the following items:

Heads' workload: There has
been very little progress on this, except to acknowledge that it is still a
major problem. ASCL has been pushing this in WAMG and is looking for good
practice to circulate. Please contact Stephen if you can contribute.

Cover: Average
cover hours per teacher have gone from a maximum of 38 hours to 19 hours but
this has plateaued. The workforce agreement says that schools should be working
toward a position of 'rarely cover' but there is no deadline. Stephen urged
members to have plans in place to work toward this. Unless schools are seen to
be proactive, other unions will keep pushing and we may be forced into
regulation which will specify a time limit and ruling on the definition of
'rarely'.

Downward pressure: The
workforce agreement aim was to reduce teachers' working week from 52 hours to
45. Some progress has been made but it has plateaued at about 49. Again, it
would be prudent to highlight in operational plans the need to move toward
this.

No detriment: This has
always been meant to be taken in totality. Schools have a right to add to
teachers' duties (ie more teaching) if the overall total has gone down (no more
invigilation, cover etc) as long as it's within the overall limit. Workforce
reform does not necessarily mean teachers do less work; it means they make
better use of their time.

Single status: The Support
Staff Working Group report will have gone to Jim Knight in December. This may
very well have an impact on the effect of the single status agreement in
schools.

Pay standards: It has been
agreed that the professional standards framework is progressive and that
induction/main scale standards underpin the other standards. The head should be
satisfied that a teacher meets the induction/main scale standards, via
performance management, before assessing threshold standards. This looks as if
threshold is a two-stage assessment process and therefore additional work.
Stephen assured that it does not have to be.

During debate, the
following views were expressed by Council representatives.

The expectation to reduce teacher workload
as stated in the agreement is undeliverable. It will not be achieved until
class sizes are reduced and changes made to the assessment regime, and these
are out of leaders' hands.

Schools could reach 'never cover' but only
if they were to reduce CPD - there is a trade off. Picking up on this point,
Stephen said that teachers need to be reminded that the workforce agreement
should be seen as a package. By far the gains they have achieved outweigh the
losses. Gained time must be used for professional activity.

Regarding heads' work-life balance, the
only way to tackle it is to look at hours spent on leadership (non-contact
time) in school, or raise the number on the senior leadership team. SLT members
will have to be more disciplined about their own work-life balance. One way to
improve WLB is for SLT to teach less.

We have to keep pushing
for national pay and conditions for support staff or workforce reform will not
work.

Circular 2/98

The Pay and Conditions Committee held a long discussion on
workforce reform and Circular 2/98. The main issue was meetings, in the context
of the pressure felt by some ASCL members from local teacher union reps who
make strict demands on meeting time. Currently there is no statutory regulation
on when and how often to hold meetings.

Stephen Szemerenyi believes that regulation
could benefit members and recommended a proposal to take to the social
partnership. The committee agreed a number of principles which were taken to
the whole Council debate.

The ASCL proposal puts
forward the case for a maximum number of hours for meetings, annualised, for
teaching staff without responsibilities, with a higher figure for
teachers in receipt of TLRs to reflect their additional levels of
responsibility. Heads should be free to determine within an annualised total
the pattern that best suits their circumstances and context. There
should be no weekly limit or time limit, as the need varies throughout the
year.

The goal would be to
have nearly all meetings calendared, but some flexibility would be required.
Council members felt that a clear definition of a meeting was required but they
were happy with the ASCL proposal to exempt briefings and one-to-one sessions
from the annual limit. The proposed total includes parent consultation meetings
but not open evenings.